Irfan’s Corner on the Web On Mac, Linux, Grid, Virtualization and Software Technology

Eric Sink vs Joel Spolsky vs Paul Graham

I've just finished Eric Sinks' book "Business of Software", and I have to say that he is a great writer, and I would recommend the book to anyone, even if they are not planning to start a startup, because it contains a lot of information which can be beneficial to any geek (to whome the book is addressed to).

Eric Sink besides Joel Spolsky is one of my favorite bloggers, and both are entrepreneurs, despite the similarities they both have different views on how a startup should work. Paul Graham, the famous essayist who co-founded Viaweb, is another of my favorite writers, his view of what a startup is supposed to be is far removed from both Joel Spolsky's and Eric Sink.

Their respective models, in the colloquial slashdot format:

Eric Sink believes:

1. Found a company with a product in mind, focus on a niche that is too small for large competitors
2. execute in that niche and listen to your customers
3. ???
4. Profit!!


Joel Spolsky Model

1. Found a company, make the best working environment for programmers
2. Hire the best programmers
3. ???
4. Profit!!!


Paul Graham Model

1. Start a company with an idea
2. Execute the idea and have an exit strategy, either be sold to a larger company or IPO
3. ???
4. Profit!!!


With [put name here] model I dont mean that the person invented it, rather they are the most popular and eloquent guys who follow the model and pitch it to others.

Eric Sinks and Joel Spolsky Models are what I call "long-haul" models, where a company is established with the aim of filling a niche, a unique need of customers, and they want to serve the customers as long as the need is there. Paul Graham's model is for the short haul, you develop a product pitch it to investor or acquirers, and if someone is interested sell-off , or go IPO and give the company to investors.
Someone who wants to be a "serial" entrepreneur, who has lots of ideas for different markets, should follow the Paul Graham model. It could make one amazingly rich. Whereas the other two models, will not make you amazingly rich in the short term, rather after an extended period of time.

Because Paul Graham's model is for the short haul, you won't find a lot of startup wisdom on Paul Graham's site. There is a bunch of it in Eric Sinks and Joel blogs. This is primarily because the long haul model allows you to be in control of everything you do with your organization, and you probably learn a lot more than by just executing an idea and than selling out. Both of their blogs contain advise on managing software development to dealing with your customers, or even finding your first customer. Recently Paul Graham mostly talks about finding investors, angel capital, exit strategies etc.

Another Study and no link b/w UHF Radio and Cancer

Some time back I wrote WiFi hazardous to health?? Give me a break!, where I argued about the folly of the move by some english schools to disband their Wifi networks due to some "health risks".

In yet another study, possibly the larget ever conducted, has found no correlation between occurance of cancer in people exposed to UHF Radio waves and those who werent exposed. Thus Cell phones, WiFi and TV transmission are safe!

From the article:

"A huge study from Denmark offers the latest reassurance that cell phones don't trigger cancer. Scientists tracked 420,000 Danish cell phone users, including 52,000 who had gabbed on the gadgets for 10 years or more, and some who started using them 21 years ago.

They matched phone records to the famed Danish Cancer Registry that records every citizen who gets the disease and reported Tuesday that cell-phone callers are no more likely than anyone else to suffer a range of cancer types. "

WiFi hazardous to health?? Give me a break!

I just came across this news item which claimed that UK Schools were dismantling wireless networks for fear of health risks! From the original article:

"Parents and teachers are forcing some schools to dismantle wireless computer networks amid fears that they could damage children’s health.
More schools are putting transmitters in classrooms to give pupils wireless access from laptops to the school computer network and the internet. But many parents and some scientists fear that low levels of microwave radiation emitted by the transmitters could be harmful, causing loss of concentration, headaches, fatigue, memory and behavioural problems and possibly cancer in the long term. "

This is absurd! WiFi operates on the Radio band at 2.4 Ghz or 2.5 Ghz (on some versions), this puts WiFi on the Ultra High Frequency Spectrum (300Mhz to 3 Ghz) , this is the same spectrum which is used by television broadcasts, mobile phones, Bluetooth, and Two-Way Radios. If WiFi is hazardous to health, than why not ban TV channels and cell phones along with them??? TV certainly has been round for decades, have we seen any research which relates the mentioned illnesses to TV broadcast radiation, I certainly haven't. Besides the Sun generates tons of high frequency radiation which bombards the planets around it, including the earth. I have seen research related to ultra violet radiation, which has magnitudes more frequency and shorter wavelength than UHF Radio, causing skin cancers, but nothing related to radio radiation.

I'm not saying that WiFi is "completely" safe, because frankly it is hard to prove that _anything_ is safe! But from the widespread use of the same frequency band over decades one can deduce that it is quite safe. Here is a quote from the WLAN health safety FAQ released by the WiFi alliance, in mid 2005:

"The safety of radio waves has been extensively studied for more than 50 years. This large and growing body of research has been regularly reviewed by numerous independent scientific expert panels, government agencies, standard-setting organizations and health authorities from around the world. These organizations have reached the same general scientific
conclusion: there is no established evidence of any adverse health effects from exposure to radio waves when present at or below the recommended limits applied to wireless communications systems. "